Author Topic: Subs cancellation and Alchemist  (Read 3919 times)

Due to a change of circumstances, I am not going to be able to continue my subscription to source. When I look at the cancellation it does say I am eligible to buy the $49 perpetual license for the whole suite. However, with Alchemist still being in beta, I am wondering if that is included or not in the deal. As I already own a perpetual copy of Painter, it's not worth it if I only get designer, which I hardly ever use.

Can someone clarify please?

Substance Alchemist is not included in the perpetual licenses when you cancel.
Director of Product Management & COO

Substance Alchemist is not included in the perpetual licenses when you cancel.

Will that change once Substance Alchemist has seen its final release ? That is, does it become part of the suite and the promise we get a perpetual license also apply to this piece ?

Ahh well, I guess that saves me $49 anyway as I already have Painter 2019.1.3  Maybe see in 12 months if I have enough in the bank to afford an upgrade. >> Sadness <<  :(

I am now wondering whether there are perpetual licenses for Alchemist at all ???

Not yet I'd imagine, simply as it's still Beta, but I'd imagine once it's officially released it will be available as Perpetual as all the other software is. IMHO it made sense to keep the Beta to the Source subscription as it's easy to administrate.

Well, I should have formulated it this way:
Will Alchemist become part of the Substance suite and/or will there be perpetual Indie licenses ?
It seems plausible that both answers are yes, but Nicolas clear statement suggested (to me) something different.
Anyway, I understand that these things contain many unpredictable elements and I would not insist on getting
any sort of definitve answer...possibly Apple buys Adobe etc.
Last Edit: August 18, 2019, 08:50:07 am

It seems plausible that both answers are yes, but Nicolas clear statement suggested (to me) something different.
I read that as saying, "at present, with it being in Beta, it would not be included", rather than suggesting it would never be included. Speaking as an ex-developer, that seems logical to me, even though I would of loved it to be included at present, technically, it isn't yet "out there".